Stupid patriotic Americans - Page 4

Ted Striker · May 11, 2003, 16:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Kramerman

Does Stefu have the mark?

He may be the one that the ancient scrolls prophesized.

If so, then he is the ONE. The ONE who will lead the ancient and venerable Society of UberAmericanPatriots

ALL HAIL STEFU!

It has been confirmed.

So it has been written, so it shall be done.

Jac de Molay · May 11, 2003, 16:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Uh DetroitDave, some citizens didn't like what Tim Robbins and the Dixie Chicks had to say.

They expressed their opinions about it.

Is that not the same freedom you are talking about?

Or should they be denied that right because you don't agree with them?

They didn't just "express" their opinions about it. There were death threats made against the Chicks, and vandalism against their property. If it was a simple matter of expressing their disagreement, I wouldn't have a problem. I didn't know that expressing an opinion entailed creating an atmosphere of fear and intimidation.

I think Robbins is quite right when he said a "chill wind" was blowing regarding the freedom of expressing dissent. Blind patriotism has had a chilling effect on free speech as of late.

Ted Striker · May 11, 2003, 16:59

People are free to express their dissent now more easily than ever.

If it's one thing people can't stand it's celebrities that think their opinion and influence is so important that they have to let everyone know about it.

Death threats are exteme and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but they should know better.

GePap · May 11, 2003, 17:07

Quote:

If it's one thing people can't stand it's celebrities that think their opinion and influence is so important that they have to let everyone know about it.

And who are you? and why should we care a sh1t what YOU say? I never understand this absurd argument: they have every right to say whatever they think, they as as much right to say what they think as anyone else. We make them famous, and now you want to say that because we make them famous, they have to keep their mouths shut? What kind of absurdity is that?!

Quote:

Death threats are exteme and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but they should know better.

Who should know better? The idiots commiting a crime, or the individuals expressing thier free political opinions?

Ted Striker · May 11, 2003, 17:09

Yes they should keep their mouths shut. That's just the way it is. People find it patronizing. It's common sense.

Ming · May 11, 2003, 17:13

Quote:

Originally posted by DetroitDave
They didn't just "express" their opinions about it. There were death threats made against the Chicks, and vandalism against their property.

"They"... you mean a FEW wackos have done this... most have just expressed their opinion on the subject by not buying any CD's or burning their CD's, which is their right. And if radio stations don't want to play their music so they can make a statement... that's their right too. EVERYBODY is allowed to express their opinions, as long as they do it in a legal manner. People that make threats should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law...

As slow says... they are welcome to their opinions, and I can spend my money however I want

Kramerman · May 11, 2003, 17:20

You cant make an opinion known and expect there to be no consequences of it.

I cant go to a Southern Baptist church, and during services step up to the podium, shove the minister out of the way, and declare several obsceneties about Jesus Christ and expect that the church goers wont have a changed opinion about me.

They are free to express their opinion, as long as it is within the law, of course. But if they merely express hatred, i must deal with that, as I made the decision that MADE them hate me.

GePap · May 11, 2003, 17:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Yes they should keep their mouths shut. That's just the way it is. People find it patronizing. It's common sense.

No, that is just NOT the way it is. "People find it patronizing"? who? those with low self-esteem who need the support of people they will never know to feel good about their lives?

It has never been, nor will it ever been, common sense, and the day it becomes "common sense" is the day this country has gone mad.

Quote:

They are free to express their opinion, as long as it is within the law, of course. But if they merely express hatred, i must deal with that, as I made the decision that MADE them hate me.

How can you make someone hate you by saying YOUR opinion about something? If they coem to hate you, obviously then, these "christians" are nothing but a bunch of lying hypocrites who read the bible but seem to have utterly forgotten what the hell Jesus said.

I though conservatives beleieved in Personal responsibility? I guess you guys don;t, since you think people are so utterly stupid and fragile that they don;t have the ability ot know when someone else is doing what Americans are supposed to be free to do.

Ted Striker · May 11, 2003, 17:30

It's common sense.

Like it was said, if you express your opinion, you'd better be prepared for people not to like it. When you express your opinions in a public forum, where millions and billions are going to hear what you have to say, be prepared to face the consequences when they don't agree with you.

But don't say something and then cry about it when people get mad at you.

GePap · May 11, 2003, 17:34

Oh lord...

People did more than say "I disagree". They sent death thread, or like you, say that they should have kept their mouths shut. That goes beyond disagreeing, which you have every right to do, and into trying to block their free expression, which you have no right to do. Think of it in Poly terms: there is a difference between posting a rebutal, and banning you for some time for what you said.

Ming · May 11, 2003, 17:37

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Oh lord...

People did more than say "I disagree". They sent death thread, or like you, say that they should have kept their mouths shut.

Again... you say THEY like you mean EVERYBODY has done so... NOT EVEN CLOSE TO REALITY.

A few wackos have... what they did is illegal.

THE MAJORITY of the people are just expressing their opinions... so don't paint ALL people because of just a few.

Jac de Molay · May 11, 2003, 17:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
"They"... you mean a FEW wackos have done this...

I dont disagree with you for the most part.

My problem is these same blindly patriotic wackos do have the potential to create an atmosphere of reluctance on the part of celebrities, or anyone else for that matter, to express a dissenting view.

No, it's not a complete stultifying of free speech, but it is a dangerous trend.

Kramerman · May 11, 2003, 17:38

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Oh lord...

People did more than say "I disagree". They sent death thread, or like you, say that they should have kept their mouths shut. That goes beyond disagreeing, which you have every right to do, and into trying to block their free expression, which you have no right to do. Think of it in Poly terms: there is a difference between posting a rebutal, and banning you for some time for what you said.

what Ming said...

GePap · May 11, 2003, 17:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming

Again... you say THEY like you mean EVERYBODY has done so... NOT EVEN CLOSE TO REALITY.

A few wackos have... what they did is illegal.

THE MAJORITY of the people are just expressing their opinions... so don't paint ALL people because of just a few.

And their opinon is " if you are famous, you should not speak out politically". Well, that is not an opinion that furthers liberty. It is an opinion of someone who wants to limit the free expression of individuals in one way or another.

These "patriots" are not saying : "I think you are wrong, and I support my president!", they are saying "I think you are wrong, and you have no right to say what you said!". I find it incredible that sensible people here willfully ignore the difference in those two statements.

Ming · May 11, 2003, 17:49

I find it incredible that you continue to Paint everybody because of what a few have done.

Most people aren't saying they don't have a right to express their opinion. Most people are saying that if you do express your opinion, you should be ready to accept what happens because you have done so.

MOST of the people are just not buying their music, going to their concerts and not supporting them with their hard earned dollars.

Only a few morons have made death threats... and just a few more are saying that they shouldn't voice their opinion...

The rest are just expressing their opinions in the same way the DC's did. Your position seems to be that it was OK for the DC's... but not ok for the majority of other people

Stefu · May 11, 2003, 17:51

Quote:

ALL HAIL STEFU!

YES!

STEFU!

GePap · May 11, 2003, 17:57

........

Quote:

MOST of the people are just not buying their music, going to their concerts and not supporting them with their hard earned dollars.

Only a few morons have made death threats... and just a few more are saying that they shouldn't voice their opinion...

I have no problesm with people not buying thier stuff, I do have problems with people starting boycotts, and having CD burnings, and I also have heard very little critism of the numnuts that did make threats, as well as little critism of the boycotts and CD burnings from the ones support the ones who "were just expresing thier opinons about the DC". I also think it is a sad day when people in this country will penalize individuals for their political choices. I have a good frind who won't watch any movies with charlton heston because of his time in the NRA. He is right to do so, but I think it is idiotic, becuase someones political beliefs have sh1t to do with their art. I may agree with the DC's, but hell like I will listen to crappy pop-country music.

Ming · May 11, 2003, 18:15

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
I have no problesm with people not buying thier stuff, I do have problems with people starting boycotts, and having CD burnings

Then you are just denying common people their right to voice their opinions. They don't have a national press to allow them a chance... so they do what they can.

Boycotts and CD burnings are Legal... For you to deny people those actions while saying the DC can voice their opinions is silly and hypocritical on your part.

The DC's AND their FAN's have the right to express their opinions. It's that simple.

Again... you want to point at a few wackos and law breakers and use them to make a point which doesn't apply to the majority of the people. A pretty weak argument on your part.

SlowwHand · May 11, 2003, 18:19

A boycott is the same as not buying.

Kramerman · May 11, 2003, 18:19

Quote:

I have a good frind who won't watch any movies with charlton heston because of his time in the NRA. He is right to do so, but I think it is idiotic, becuase someones political beliefs have sh1t to do with their art. I may agree with the DC's, but hell like I will listen to crappy pop-country music.

And thats your opinion.... YOU LEFTY SON OF A *****! IM GONNA KILL YOU!!!

Disclaimer: death threat not genuine

GePap · May 11, 2003, 18:22

Boycotts and burnings are legal, but they are designed to punish individuals. Boycotting someone for what they said is saying that what they said was so wrong, they should bear some sort of public punishment for it. Well, the Dixie chicks made a political statement, and no one in this country should be punished for making political statements. People can express thier opinion by writing a letter to the editor, they can express them simply by not buying, but as I just stated, tryng to punish someone for their opinons goes beyond "just making yours", it ia actively trying to enforce some sort of consensus, something you don;t have a right to do, at least when it comes to politics in this country.

Ming · May 11, 2003, 18:24

Consumers have been "voting" with their pocketbook for years... it's THEIR RIGHT. So if they don't want to buy... or even burn the CD's they own... IT'S THEIR RIGHT.

And you want to take away this right... while allowing the DC's their rights... Hmmmm.. there seems to be sounds coming out of both sides of your mouth

GePap · May 11, 2003, 18:24

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
A boycott is the same as not buying.

No, A boycott is trying to organize a campaign of people to get them not to buy, with the epxress hope that the economic damage to the individuals involved will force a change in action. A boycott is not simply an act of personal opinion, but a political act.

Saying they are the same is like saying participating in a protest march and writing a letter to thte editor are th same thing..they are not.

SlowwHand · May 11, 2003, 18:25

The thing is, they had a crowd gathered to hear them sing music.

Tickets prices are high.
Why should people have to pay hig dollar to listen to 3 entertainers give their political comment?

Comes under a time and place for everything.

Jac de Molay · May 11, 2003, 18:27

Gimme a break, it was one sentence, not some extended political diatribe.

GePap · May 11, 2003, 18:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Consumers have been "voting" with their pocketbook for years... it's THEIR RIGHT. So if they don't want to buy... or even burn the CD's they own... IT'S THEIR RIGHT.

And you want to take away this right... while allowing the DC's their rights... Hmmmm.. there seems to be sounds coming out of both sides of your mouth

OH FOR GOD'S SAKE!

It is so difficult to understand! If I don't buy a car cause I don;t like the company, that is me voicing my opion with my pocketbook, but it has no bearing on whether the makers of the porduct i refuse to buy will continue to make it, as long as enough people do buy it. My act then ahs little consequence on thier ability to make what they want to make, on thier actions. If I start a boycott of the product, call over the press, get some examples and burn them in public..that goes beyond me just voicing my opino of their act, of their product. it becomes me trying to force the maker to stop what they are doing..it is me trying to end their actions, to limit their freedom in this one way.

IT IS NOT THE SAME THING!! NEVER WAS, NEVER WILL BE!

SlowwHand · May 11, 2003, 18:29

Apparently it was one too many.

Rights are rights.

Ming · May 11, 2003, 18:29

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
A boycott is not simply an act of personal opinion, but a political act.

BUT SO IS TALKING TO THE PRESS... What the DC's did was as much a policital act as the boycotts.

ANYBODY that says something in public must live with what happens. The DC's shouldn't have anymore rights or proctections than anybody else.

People are expressing their opinions... what's wrong with that... Oh, that's right, you only support the rights of people that have the same point of view as you do

Chemical Ollie · May 11, 2003, 18:32

Chicksie D!cks answered a promted question in a British interview. They did not make political statements on stage. Correct me if I remember wrong.

SlowwHand · May 11, 2003, 18:33

Would you want to go to the county fair's stock yard, only to have a pig start singing?